I do not care that there is currently no legislation that could stop a second flag referendum, it’s an entirely moot and lazy point – up until last week there was no legislation for a fifth flag option either. It is disappointing the reporter who wrote this piece for Radio New Zealand Megan Whelan does not include that information. Fact is legislation can be modified on the fly and under urgency and constantly is, to pretend legislation is somehow static and unchanging is bad form and lends no integrity to the report.
The whole reasoning for informal votes is the hope that sheer volumes of numbers would be enough to put pressure on the government and wider community for support to stop what would by then clearly be a pointless second referendum. People still have power. Am sick of journalists and media organisations hiding their balls and telling us we don’t.
I for one will be making an informal vote first time around.
My submission supporting this petition:
The argument for the two-step referendum process was that voters needed to see which flag design the current flag would be up against before knowing if they would want to change to it or not. Except people already know whether or not they are going to vote to change the flag. Therefore two-step process is a waste time, money, debate and resources.
Then today parliament made even more of a farce of an already flawed process by effectively rejecting the final four designs when they voted to include Aaron Dustin’s Red Peak in the first of referendums. This action is akin to bringing back a wildcard in a badly run talent contest, except this one is a bizarre parliamentary version of New Zealand’s Flags’ Got Talent and it’s crap, and it’s costing taxpayers $26 million dollars.
The only honest course of action going forward is for the government to hold just one referendum which sees the current flag going head-to-head with the five alternatives.
One referendum, one vote, one flag, one time.
a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about changing New Zealand’s flag or the state of the flag change process in general.
“not having a Yes/No vote in the first referendum has caused unnecessary angst amongst voters, especially those who do not want to change”
synonyms: anxiety, fear, dread, apprehension, worry, perturbation, foreboding, trepidation, malaise, distress, disquiet, disquietude, unease, uneasiness; rare inquietude
It looks like today’s questions were a coordinated effort by opposition parties to make the prime minister answer questions and not have him fob them off to someone else or deny he has any responsibility to answer it. I thought Duncan Garner was a political journalist once, so surely he would have known this? Or is this fobbing off questions a new thing, unique to Team Key?
When MPs ask Key if he “stands by all his statements” he has to answer questions that are put to him and not pass it on to one of his Ministers. If they simply asked him about a particular subject, he can blow it off and not answer it by saying he has no responsibility for that portfolio, thereby wasting a valuable question. The government does this so the prime minister is kept from having to answer tough questions and/or be associated with dodgy, useless, inept, corrupt, etc, government ministers and departments.
For example you could ask Key about the state of operations at a particular DHB, he could claim he has no ‘ministerial responsibility for that’ and pass the question to his Minister of Health to answer. Or he might have made the claim a health department is operating very well, but when it’s proven it isn’t, he can simply deny he has any knowledge or responsibility for it. Whereas asking him if he “stands by all this statements” (usually it is only in relation to a particular topic) but to make the point the opposition parties gave him no wiggle room today by asking if he stood by all his statements since becoming prime minister, means he has to answer, and truthfully, MPs including the PM can not to lie to or mislead parliament. It’s probably the worse thing a politician can do.
Passing off questions has been happening a lot with this government and it frustrates democracy. A country needs a strong opposition (regardless of your politics) to hold governments to account but if they are hindered in the very house where they are meant to get answers for the public, from the very ministers or a prime minister who serve us, then there’s not much an opposition can be, but inept – and that doesn’t do anyone any favours. I applaud what the parties did to day. More of the same please.
Love this brilliant, bold, determined woman. Detention centers are vile, inhumane cattle yards and have no place in so called democratic civil societies.
Melbourne woman taking on Transfield over children in detention
September 18, 2015 – 10:44PM
This is the Melbourne woman who has corporate giant Transfield Services extremely nervous as it negotiates a new contract to run Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres.
Transfield is preparing to sign a multibillion-dollar, five-year deal to continue operating the Manus Island and Nauru camps on behalf of the federal government, and Shen Narayanasamy wants to put the release of children at the forefront of the company’s mind.
“People might be swayed by the Stop the Boats rhetoric, but they draw the line at child abuse.”
And Transfield is taking her and the newly formed group she helped create, No Business In Abuse (NBIA), very seriously.
He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!
Newly launched entertainment and celebrity site SCOUT provided it’s audience with a much lauded first day exclusive on Monday which turned out to be little more than footage of NewstalkZB radio host and TVNZ’s Seven Sharp presenter Mike Hosking vacuuming his Ferrari. Yes, you read it right. New Zealand’s highest paid broadcaster vacuuming his car is a not just celebrity news to SCOUT, the knowledge is so titillating it needs to be delivered to us an exclusive. If this exclusive wasn’t such vacuous tripe you’d be forgiven for thinking Rachel Glucina and her SCOUT co-owners Mediaworks had taken out shares in a vacuuming cleaning company and were about to launch nightly SCOUT TV infomercials for their very own oh so sucky-motor.
However its not the mindblowing numbness of SCOUT’s very first exclusive that is the point of this post, rather it’s the sexism that accompanied it. Glucina as author of this dust bunny drivel, needs to lift her game if she hopes SCOUT to have any longevity. For the record, saying Hosking is not above ’embracing his inner cleaning lady’ is sexist and unnecessary. Men actually do clean and for the most part the majority of them don’t need to lower themselves from the lofty status of male to the lowly status of female to pick up a hoover.
If this is the level of narrative and content SCOUT hopes to provide, then I can’t wait for it’s close-up of Key the Elder trimming his nose hairs and Glucina’s exclusive interviews with each of his nose hairs for their unique take on the inner workings of Prime Minister John.
In recognition of his longtime friend and media spin merchant Rachel Glucina’s foray into serious journalism today over at Scout, our Dear Leader Kim Jong Key commissioned this commemorative piece of propaganda:
“I did not have textual relations with that coniferist”
Thank you, Dear Leader, thank you.
August 2010 Labour’s Charles Chauvel introduced a private members bill to parliament seeking to hold a debate on changing the New Zealand flag. He proposed an 18 month consultative process and a design competition, culminating in one referendum asking voters if the wished to retain the existing flag or to adopt one of the three competition winners. Unfortunately for Chauvel, who resigned from parliament in 2013, his bill was never drawn from the ballot.
So it may have come as some surprise to Chauvel and his Labour peers when John Key announced in January 2014 his government would be holding a referendum on this very issue. As only a few short years earlier change was not on the government’s agenda, not even remotely, as noted in this 2010 article.
“However, Mr Chauvel may have his work cut out for him as Prime Minister John Key has said changing New Zealand’s flag isn’t on the Government’s agenda.”
Would be interesting to compare and rank Chauvel’s New Zealand Flag Bill with the government’s New Zealand Flag Referendum Act and see which flag process offered New Zealanders the best opportunity for unity, identity and change.
Also, just exactly what changed between 2010 and 2014 Mr Key?